Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2024 Jun 21;24(13):4048.
doi: 10.3390/s24134048.

Integration of Finite Element Analysis and Laboratory Analysis on 3D Models for Methodology Calibration

Sara Gonizzi Barsanti  1 , Rosa De Finis  2 , Riccardo Nobile  2
Affiliations

Integration of Finite Element Analysis and Laboratory Analysis on 3D Models for Methodology Calibration

Sara Gonizzi Barsanti et al. Sensors (Basel). .

Abstract

To better address mechanical behavior, it is necessary to make use of modern tools through which it is possible to run predictions, simulate scenarios, and optimize decisions. sources integration. This will increase the capability of detecting material modifications that forerun damage and/or to forecast the stage in the future when very likely fatigue is initiating and propagating cracks. Early warning outcomes obtained by the synergetic implementation of NDE-based protocols for studying mechanical and fatigue and fracture behavior will enhance the preparedness toward economically sustainable future damage control scenarios. Specifically, these early warning outcomes will be developed in the form of retopologized models to be used coupled with FEA. This paper presents the first stage of calibration and the combination of a system of different sensors (photogrammetry, laser scanning and strain gages) for the creation of volumetric models suitable for the prediction of failure of FEA software. The test objects were two components of car suspension to which strain gauges were attached to measure its deformation under cyclic loading. The calibration of the methodology was carried out using models obtained from photogrammetry and experimental strain gauge measurements.

Keywords: 3D models; FEA; NDT sensors; calibration; integration of sensors; structural analysis.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
The position of the parts analysed in the car (a) and the specification with colours of the parts to better identify them (b).
Figure 2
Figure 2
The installation of the sensors on the green specimen (a,c,e) and the red one (b,d,f).
Figure 2
Figure 2
The installation of the sensors on the green specimen (a,c,e) and the red one (b,d,f).
Figure 3
Figure 3
The two specimens, red (a) and green (b), with the scale bar used to scale them.
Figure 4
Figure 4
The (a) camera and lens and (b) Faro ScanArm2 used for the survey.
Figure 5
Figure 5
Errors and inaccuracy on the 3D models obtained with the scanner.
Figure 6
Figure 6
Comparison between the high-resolution photogrammetric models and the different simplifications. Red specimen: triangular (a), first medium simplification through retopology (b) and second, strong simplification through retopology (c). Green specimen: triangular (d), first medium simplification through retopology (e) and second, strong simplification through retopology (f).
Figure 6
Figure 6
Comparison between the high-resolution photogrammetric models and the different simplifications. Red specimen: triangular (a), first medium simplification through retopology (b) and second, strong simplification through retopology (c). Green specimen: triangular (d), first medium simplification through retopology (e) and second, strong simplification through retopology (f).
Figure 7
Figure 7
The setting of the fixed support on the entire hole (a) and the force along the X-axis (b).
Figure 8
Figure 8
CAD models of the red (a) and green (b) specimens.
Figure 9
Figure 9
Boolean difference in Rhinoceros (a); selection of element on the green specimen for the definition of the fixed support highlighted in blue (b) and the traction highlighted in red (c).
Figure 10
Figure 10
Results of FEA for the RED specimen: (a) traction in AE3; (b) compression in AE3; (c) traction BE4; (d) compression BE4 for the first retopology; (e) traction in AE3; (f) compression in AE3; (g) traction BE4; (h) compression BE4 for the second retopology.
Figure 10
Figure 10
Results of FEA for the RED specimen: (a) traction in AE3; (b) compression in AE3; (c) traction BE4; (d) compression BE4 for the first retopology; (e) traction in AE3; (f) compression in AE3; (g) traction BE4; (h) compression BE4 for the second retopology.
Figure 10
Figure 10
Results of FEA for the RED specimen: (a) traction in AE3; (b) compression in AE3; (c) traction BE4; (d) compression BE4 for the first retopology; (e) traction in AE3; (f) compression in AE3; (g) traction BE4; (h) compression BE4 for the second retopology.
Figure 10
Figure 10
Results of FEA for the RED specimen: (a) traction in AE3; (b) compression in AE3; (c) traction BE4; (d) compression BE4 for the first retopology; (e) traction in AE3; (f) compression in AE3; (g) traction BE4; (h) compression BE4 for the second retopology.
Figure 11
Figure 11
Results of FEA for the RED specimen: (a) traction in AE5; (b) compression in AE5; (c) traction BE6; (d) compression BE6 for the first retopology; (e) traction in AE5; (f) compression in AE5; (g) traction BE6; (h) compression BE6 for the second retopology.
Figure 11
Figure 11
Results of FEA for the RED specimen: (a) traction in AE5; (b) compression in AE5; (c) traction BE6; (d) compression BE6 for the first retopology; (e) traction in AE5; (f) compression in AE5; (g) traction BE6; (h) compression BE6 for the second retopology.
Figure 11
Figure 11
Results of FEA for the RED specimen: (a) traction in AE5; (b) compression in AE5; (c) traction BE6; (d) compression BE6 for the first retopology; (e) traction in AE5; (f) compression in AE5; (g) traction BE6; (h) compression BE6 for the second retopology.
Figure 12
Figure 12
The maximum stress for traction (a) extrados (b) intrados (c) and compression, and for compression (c) extrados (d) intrados for red specimen second retopology.
Figure 13
Figure 13
The maximum stress for traction (a) extrados (b) intrados (c) and compression, and for compression (c) extrados (d) intrados for green specimen second retopology.
See this image and copyright information in PMC

References

    1. Höllig K. Finite Element Methods with B-Splines. Society for Industrial and Applied Mathematics; Stuttgart, Germany: 2023. - DOI
    1. Gonizzi Barsanti S., Guidi G. A Geometric Processing Workflow for Transforming Reality-Based 3D Models in Volumetric Meshes Suitable for FEA. Int. Arch. Photogramm. Remote Sens. Spat. Inf. Sci. 2017;42:331–338. doi: 10.5194/isprs-archives-XLII-2-W3-331-2017. - DOI
    1. Liu H., Du W., Nezhad H.Y., Starr A., Zhao Y. A dissection and enhancement technique for combined damage characterisation in composite laminates using laser-line scanning thermography. Compos. Struct. 2021;271:114168. doi: 10.1016/j.compstruct.2021.114168. - DOI
    1. Cho Y.K., Ham Y., Golpavar-Fard M. 3D as-is building energy modeling and diagnosis: A review of the stateof-the-art. Adv. Eng. Inform. 2015;29:184–195. doi: 10.1016/j.aei.2015.03.004. - DOI
    1. Remondino F., El-Hakim S. Image-based 3D Modelling: A Review. Photogramm. Rec. 2006;21:269–291. doi: 10.1111/j.1477-9730.2006.00383.x. - DOI